Let's face it, when it came to Orthodoxy, St. Justin was a good theologian, but when it came to anything non-Orthodox he was just your average controversialist. St. Justin being my patron saint, and besides that an engaging writer, I have enjoyed reading his books over and over; but I have to admit that he builds his cases against almost everyone (European man, the Pope, etc.) with accusations rather than evidence. He often assumes that his claims are self-evident. Maybe they are to many approaching these subjects from within an Orthodox framework, but I wish he'd have spent more time explaining why exactly he believed as he did.

We can read the article of the American theologian Fr Thomas Hopko. It displays a verbosity which Fr Justin usually eschewed and it displays much more diplomatic language. But when we take away the charitable language and ask ourselves, what Church is Fr Hopko envisioning will emerge after a union of Roman Catholicism and Orthodoxy, the answer is simple. He agrees with Fr Justin. It will be a Church without papal primacy and a Church without papal infallibility.

Perhaps you could use those superior research skills to find something you really don't want to find...eh?

Why waste them on a goose chase. A silly goose chase.

Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.A hasty quarrel kindles fire,and urgent strife sheds blood.If you blow on a spark, it will glow;if you spit on it, it will be put out; and both come out of your mouth

5. This power of the Supreme Pontiff by no means detracts from that ordinary and immediate power of episcopal jurisdiction, by which bishops, who have succeeded to the place of the apostles by appointment of the Holy Spirit, tend and govern individually the particular flocks which have been assigned to them. On the contrary, this power of theirs is asserted, supported and defended by the Supreme and Universal Pastor; for St. Gregory the Great says: "My honor is the honor of the whole Church. My honor is the steadfast strength of my brethren. Then do I receive true honor, when it is denied to none of those to whom honor is due."

"Disclaimer" is a legal term meaning, here is where I am going to deny what I am doing.

When is a lie not a lie? When it’s fiction. But where does fiction end and falsehood begin?

“This book is a work of fiction. Names, characters, places and incidents are product of the author’s imagination or are used fictitiously. Any resemblance to actual events or locales or persons, living or dead, is entirely coincidental.”

This standard disclaimer appears in the front matter of Dan Brown’s Angels & Demons. In a paradoxical sense, the disclaimer is itself a sort of fiction. While certain “names” and “places” are certainly “used fictitiously,” any “resemblance” to actual “locales” of such settings in the book as St. Peter’s Square, the Pantheon and the Sistine Chapel is obviously far from “entirely coincidental.” The same could be said of references to Galileo and Copernicus and incidents from their lives. Everyone knows this, and no one pays much attention to such disclaimers.

“References to all works of art, tombs, tunnels and architecture in Rome are entirely factual (as are their exact locations). They can still be seen today. The brotherhood of the Illuminati is also factual.”

This author’s note, just a few pages from the disclaimer above, has attracted much more attention and is generally regarded as meaning more or less what it says, whether true or false.

Taking both the disclaimer and the author’s note at face value, the two flatly contradict one another — which means that, at face value, at least one must be false, though not that the other must be true. In fact, the author’s note is no more strictly true than the disclaimer, and it looks much more like a blatant falsehood.

The same can be said of Pastor Aeternus

This is where you are arrogating to yourself a power of analysis that is not legitimately your own.

Because I'm not commissioned by the Vatican?

No, don't need to pickle my brain on the kool-aid to have power to analyze. Just functioning thought.

I have no legimate authority to declare that the North Korean Constitution, despite all the waxing poetic on the power of the people, enacts a one man dictatorship of the personality cult. But I am right nonetheless.

Quote

You are wrong here

I am right here, as elsewhere.

Quote

and all that you do to try to demean the papacy flows from here and is tainted by this very arrogance, and I also suspect, ignorance.

The usual gnostic patronizing we have come to expect.

Your authorities' sources and authoritative statements have been linked and provide. Any reader can learn for themselves. There is no arrogance in pointing that out.

Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.A hasty quarrel kindles fire,and urgent strife sheds blood.If you blow on a spark, it will glow;if you spit on it, it will be put out; and both come out of your mouth

Let's face it, when it came to Orthodoxy, St. Justin was a good theologian, but when it came to anything non-Orthodox he was just your average controversialist. St. Justin being my patron saint, and besides that an engaging writer, I have enjoyed reading his books over and over; but I have to admit that he builds his cases against almost everyone (European man, the Pope, etc.) with accusations rather than evidence. He often assumes that his claims are self-evident. Maybe they are to many approaching these subjects from within an Orthodox framework, but I wish he'd have spent more time explaining why exactly he believed as he did.

The moment you begin to explain a polemic, in any kind of real terms that takes you even a fraction away from your assertions, you loose the power of the polemic. So you control the terms of the debate, you control the assertions, presumptions and assumptions...you win.

Father st. Justin won!! He won a tiny army of people who are willing to "assert" just as he did.

I wouldn't allow you to do my homework...I need to pass external exams based in reality to have any credibility, and the only way you could do my homework is if you controlled both ends of things, as you try to do here, and my degree would be in the art of loosely crafted fantasy and not real life!!!!

Seriously though there are photos in existence with Russian nationalist neo-Nazis and among them are men who are obviously Orthodox monks and priests. Someone did send a link to those photos to my list and back then, I looked and moved on because I am aware that many nations have their neo-nazi nationalists...which should never be confused with its patriots, by the way.

The point is that you and Father Ambrose always leave out inconvenient realities in your lurid, florid and disconnected power-point presentations of what you'd like reality to look like...so that you can continue to maintain your disdain and rejection of the Catholic Church.

So I don't intend to go hunting for old photos of Russian nationalist neo-nazi priests. I don't really care about it enough to spend the time. If I run into them again...I'll send them to you and Father Ambrose.

Let's face it, when it came to Orthodoxy, St. Justin was a good theologian, but when it came to anything non-Orthodox he was just your average controversialist. St. Justin being my patron saint, and besides that an engaging writer, I have enjoyed reading his books over and over; but I have to admit that he builds his cases against almost everyone (European man, the Pope, etc.) with accusations rather than evidence. He often assumes that his claims are self-evident. Maybe they are to many approaching these subjects from within an Orthodox framework, but I wish he'd have spent more time explaining why exactly he believed as he did.

The moment you begin to explain a polemic, in any kind of real terms that takes you even a fraction away from your assertions, you loose the power of the polemic. So you control the terms of the debate, you control the assertions, presumptions and assumptions...you win.

Father st. Justin won!! He won a tiny army of people who are willing to "assert" just as he did.

Yea!!

What does that have to do with reality? Nothing.

I refer you back to my earlier questions which you did not dare to touch...

Papal primacy - will the Orthodox whom you know agree that after union the Pope will be superior to Ecumenical Councils and have authority to negate them

Papal infallibility - will the Orthodox whom you know agree that after union the Pope will retain his personal non ex consensu ecclesiae infallibility?

Let's face it, when it came to Orthodoxy, St. Justin was a good theologian, but when it came to anything non-Orthodox he was just your average controversialist. St. Justin being my patron saint, and besides that an engaging writer, I have enjoyed reading his books over and over; but I have to admit that he builds his cases against almost everyone (European man, the Pope, etc.) with accusations rather than evidence. He often assumes that his claims are self-evident. Maybe they are to many approaching these subjects from within an Orthodox framework, but I wish he'd have spent more time explaining why exactly he believed as he did.

The moment you begin to explain a polemic, in any kind of real terms that takes you even a fraction away from your assertions, you loose the power of the polemic. So you control the terms of the debate, you control the assertions, presumptions and assumptions...you win.

Father st. Justin won!! He won a tiny army of people who are willing to "assert" just as he did.

Yea!!

What does that have to do with reality? Nothing.

Just the "St." in front of his name.

Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.A hasty quarrel kindles fire,and urgent strife sheds blood.If you blow on a spark, it will glow;if you spit on it, it will be put out; and both come out of your mouth

I wouldn't allow you to do my homework...I need to pass external exams based in reality to have any credibility, and the only way you could do my homework is if you controlled both ends of things, as you try to do here, and my degree would be in the art of loosely crafted fantasy and not real life!!!!

Seriously though there are photos in existence with Russian nationalist neo-Nazis and among them are men who are obviously Orthodox monks and priests. Someone did send a link to those photos to my list and back then, I looked and moved on because I am aware that many nations have their neo-nazi nationalists...which should never be confused with its patriots, by the way.

The point is that you and Father Ambrose always leave out inconvenient realities in your lurid, florid and disconnected power-point presentations of what you'd like reality to look like...so that you can continue to maintain your disdain and rejection of the Catholic Church.

And yet we are able to cut and paste, link and post so that readers can discover for themselves. They do not have to take our word on it.

Quote

So I don't intend to go hunting for old photos of Russian nationalist neo-nazi priests. I don't really care about it enough to spend the time. If I run into them again...I'll send them to you and Father Ambrose.

I'll make a mental note.

Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.A hasty quarrel kindles fire,and urgent strife sheds blood.If you blow on a spark, it will glow;if you spit on it, it will be put out; and both come out of your mouth

Your authorities' sources and authoritative statements have been linked and provide. Any reader can learn for themselves. There is no arrogance in pointing that out.

You may have a good solid B+ in Cut-and-Paste 430

But you've failed Analysis 101

I'll let our readers do the grading.

Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.A hasty quarrel kindles fire,and urgent strife sheds blood.If you blow on a spark, it will glow;if you spit on it, it will be put out; and both come out of your mouth

Let's face it, when it came to Orthodoxy, St. Justin was a good theologian, but when it came to anything non-Orthodox he was just your average controversialist. St. Justin being my patron saint, and besides that an engaging writer, I have enjoyed reading his books over and over; but I have to admit that he builds his cases against almost everyone (European man, the Pope, etc.) with accusations rather than evidence. He often assumes that his claims are self-evident. Maybe they are to many approaching these subjects from within an Orthodox framework, but I wish he'd have spent more time explaining why exactly he believed as he did.

The moment you begin to explain a polemic, in any kind of real terms that takes you even a fraction away from your assertions, you loose the power of the polemic. So you control the terms of the debate, you control the assertions, presumptions and assumptions...you win.

Father st. Justin won!! He won a tiny army of people who are willing to "assert" just as he did.

Yea!!

What does that have to do with reality? Nothing.

I refer you back to my earlier questions which you did not dare to touch...

Papal primacy - will the Orthodox whom you know agree that after union the Pope will be superior to Ecumenical Councils and have authority to negate them

Papal infallibility - will the Orthodox whom you know agree that after union the Pope will retain his personal non ex consensu ecclesiae infallibility?

Is there a massive army of Orthodox who assert these two positions?

I believe that, as always, you will refuse to reply.

Most of the Orthodox bishops and priest-scholars that I've had contact with over the years do not believe the Church teaches what you say above so that is not even part of the discussion. There are other kinds of issues but as you outline them...they are non-starters because they don't even exist for the Catholic Church.

The ones like yourself who do insist that is what is at issue simple insist and then carp that nobody addresses their concerns...oh well...Can't help you there.

...so that you can continue to maintain your disdain and rejection of the Catholic Church.

It is sad that you do not distinguish a rejection of the things that are wrong in the Roman Catholic Church's history and doctrine from a genuine dain for Roman Catholics

I have a very difficult time dealing with fantasy, Father. Religion is very real to me and doctrine makes sense as whole cloth. I don't do piece-meal made up nonsensical, unreality all that well when it comes to discussions of my beliefs and faith.

I do love fantasy in other venues but they are always secular and may be ancient cultures or decently written contemporary fiction.

But don't worry. There are Catholics who think the way you do as well. So you are not alone.

Let's face it, when it came to Orthodoxy, St. Justin was a good theologian, but when it came to anything non-Orthodox he was just your average controversialist. St. Justin being my patron saint, and besides that an engaging writer, I have enjoyed reading his books over and over; but I have to admit that he builds his cases against almost everyone (European man, the Pope, etc.) with accusations rather than evidence. He often assumes that his claims are self-evident. Maybe they are to many approaching these subjects from within an Orthodox framework, but I wish he'd have spent more time explaining why exactly he believed as he did.

The moment you begin to explain a polemic, in any kind of real terms that takes you even a fraction away from your assertions, you loose the power of the polemic. So you control the terms of the debate, you control the assertions, presumptions and assumptions...you win.

Father st. Justin won!! He won a tiny army of people who are willing to "assert" just as he did.

Yea!!

What does that have to do with reality? Nothing.

I refer you back to my earlier questions which you did not dare to touch...

Papal primacy - will the Orthodox whom you know agree that after union the Pope will be superior to Ecumenical Councils and have authority to negate them

Papal infallibility - will the Orthodox whom you know agree that after union the Pope will retain his personal non ex consensu ecclesiae infallibility?

Is there a massive army of Orthodox who assert these two positions?

I believe that, as always, you will refuse to reply.

Most of the Orthodox bishops and priest-scholars that I've had contact with over the years do not believe the Church teaches what you say above so that is not even part of the discussion. There are other kinds of issues but as you outline them...they are non-starters because they don't even exist for the Catholic Church.

The ones like yourself who do insist that is what is at issue simple insist and then carp that nobody addresses their concerns...oh well...Can't help you there.

M.

So you cannot answer my simple questions? Why? Why are you evading them?

You have said many times that the topics of major concern in the bilateral dialogue are papal primacy and infallibility and so my questions are right on the mark.

After the union will the pope

1) continue to be superior to Ecumenical Councils and have the authority to negate them?

or

2) be inferior to Ecumenical Councils and subject to them as is every other bishop?

3) will the Pope continue to possess a personal non-ex-consensu-ecclesiae infallibility?

...so that you can continue to maintain your disdain and rejection of the Catholic Church.

It is sad that you do not distinguish a rejection of the things that are wrong in the Roman Catholic Church's history and doctrine from a genuine dain for Roman Catholics

I have a very difficult time dealing with fantasy, Father. Religion is very real to me and doctrine makes sense as whole cloth. I don't do piece-meal made up nonsensical, unreality all that well when it comes to discussions of my beliefs and faith.

I do love fantasy in other venues but they are always secular and may be ancient cultures or decently written contemporary fiction.

But don't worry. There are Catholics who think the way you do as well. So you are not alone.

M.

You seem to have lost the plot since none of what I wrote was fantasy but the truth.

1. I reject the things which are wrong in Roman Catholic history and doctrine

2. I do not have any disdain for Roman Catholics.

It is YOUR fantasy to construct strawmen and accuse me otherwise. Well, continue in your fantasy if you want. I doubt if anyone can influence you to see the truth.

Keep looking fellas...It was an Orthodox priest who sent them to me originally. So they do exist.

Perhaps you could use those superior research skills to find something you really don't want to find...eh?

Or........

You could provide the pics since apparently you're the only one who can find them. I looked through over 17 pages of google image results and got tired of looking.

If I find them again I'll post a link.

Don't spend time any time on it. I am sorry I posted that publicly now that I see people are actually looking. I just don't save that kind of thing. And the only reason I'd start now would be for the wrong reasons, so I suppose I'll just have to leave Isa to his own vices...and Father Ambrose.

So you cannot answer my simple questions? Why? Why are you evading them?

You have said many times that the topics of major concern in the bilateral dialogue are papal primacy and infallibility and so my questions are right on the mark.

Dear Father Ambrose,

These topics are of major concern. Thankfully you and Isa will not be there to demand that you be allowed to define what those two topics mean or entail.

I will not answer your questions because I do not give you the right to define what my Church means by primacy and infallibility...apparently Orthodoxy has not relegated that privilege to you either or your name would be on the lists of bi-lateral participants.

So you cannot answer my simple questions? Why? Why are you evading them?

You have said many times that the topics of major concern in the bilateral dialogue are papal primacy and infallibility and so my questions are right on the mark.

Dear Father Ambrose,

These topics are of major concern. Thankfully you and Isa will not be there to demand that you be allowed to define what those two topics mean or entail.

I will not answer your questions because I do not give you the right to define what my Church means by primacy and infallibility...apparently Orthodoxy has not relegated that privilege to you either or your name would be on the lists of bi-lateral participants.

Oh my! This kind of disdain for the Orthodox is hardly ever met with among Roman Catholics. It seems that you refuse to answer the questions and feel you must attack the one who asks them .

...so that you can continue to maintain your disdain and rejection of the Catholic Church.

It is sad that you do not distinguish a rejection of the things that are wrong in the Roman Catholic Church's history and doctrine from a genuine dain for Roman Catholics

Perhaps his behavior (as you see it) suggests disdain only for certain Catholics whose own behavior suggests disdain for Orthodox (as I see it)?

Nah, I have seen the games he plays all over the internet.

I play no games, dear man. I speak the simple truth which is often objectionable to Catholic ears. Mary's oft repeated advice to Catholics here - keep repeating the truth - has been a solid plank in my internet writing for years.

...so that you can continue to maintain your disdain and rejection of the Catholic Church.

It is sad that you do not distinguish a rejection of the things that are wrong in the Roman Catholic Church's history and doctrine from a genuine dain for Roman Catholics

Perhaps his behavior (as you see it) suggests disdain only for certain Catholics whose own behavior suggests disdain for Orthodox (as I see it)?

Nah, I have seen the games he plays all over the internet.

I play no games, dear man. I speak the simple truth which is often objectionable to Catholic ears. Mary's oft repeated advice to Catholics here - keep repeating the truth - has been a solid plank in my internet writing for years.

You guys/gals play games all over the internet? I feel so left out! All I do is hang around this joint.

Logged

"Christian America is finally waking up to what fraternities and biker gangs have known for years: hazing works!"

...so that you can continue to maintain your disdain and rejection of the Catholic Church.

It is sad that you do not distinguish a rejection of the things that are wrong in the Roman Catholic Church's history and doctrine from a genuine dain for Roman Catholics

Perhaps his behavior (as you see it) suggests disdain only for certain Catholics whose own behavior suggests disdain for Orthodox (as I see it)?

Nah, I have seen the games he plays all over the internet.

I play no games, dear man. I speak the simple truth which is often objectionable to Catholic ears. Mary's oft repeated advice to Catholics here - keep repeating the truth - has been a solid plank in my internet writing for years.

You guys/gals play games all over the internet? I feel so left out! All I do is hang around this joint.

I used to interact with Catholics on CAF before most of the Orthodox were banned. Many of the CAF refugees found a new home here at OC.net where we continue to interact with Catholics. Some of them actually followed us to OC.net because they desired to continue the interaction. I do not understand why Papist would see this as playing games "all over the internet." It's excessive to say that.

...so that you can continue to maintain your disdain and rejection of the Catholic Church.

It is sad that you do not distinguish a rejection of the things that are wrong in the Roman Catholic Church's history and doctrine from a genuine dain for Roman Catholics

Perhaps his behavior (as you see it) suggests disdain only for certain Catholics whose own behavior suggests disdain for Orthodox (as I see it)?

Nah, I have seen the games he plays all over the internet.

I play no games, dear man. I speak the simple truth which is often objectionable to Catholic ears. Mary's oft repeated advice to Catholics here - keep repeating the truth - has been a solid plank in my internet writing for years.

You guys/gals play games all over the internet? I feel so left out! All I do is hang around this joint.

I used to interact with Catholics on CAF before most of the Orthodox were banned. Many of the CAF refugees found a new home here at OC.net where we continue to interact with Catholics. Some of them actually followed us to OC.net because they desired to continue the interaction. I do not understand why Papist would see this as playing games "all over the internet." It's excessive to say that.

Well, if I really look at it, I have to say that 90% of the Orthodox-Catholic exchanges are definitely in "game" territory. Most of this stuff has little or no value, even for polemical purposes. The Nazi priest picture hunt is the latest case in point. I think you all (and I say this this as someone who's no stranger to internet shenanigans) might want to step back from internet debates for a bit.

Logged

"A riddle or the cricket's cryIs to doubt a fit reply." - William Blake

So you cannot answer my simple questions? Why? Why are you evading them?

You have said many times that the topics of major concern in the bilateral dialogue are papal primacy and infallibility and so my questions are right on the mark.

Dear Father Ambrose,

These topics are of major concern. Thankfully you and Isa will not be there to demand that you be allowed to define what those two topics mean or entail.

I will not answer your questions because I do not give you the right to define what my Church means by primacy and infallibility...apparently Orthodoxy has not relegated that privilege to you either or your name would be on the lists of bi-lateral participants.

Oh my! This kind of disdain for the Orthodox is hardly ever met with among Roman Catholics. It seems that you refuse to answer the questions and feel you must attack the one who asks them .

You are not asking a question in fact. You are trying to control both sides of the discussion. That is called a monologue. I don't intend to interrupt you. Please do not try to verbally bully me into doing so.

So you cannot answer my simple questions? Why? Why are you evading them?

You have said many times that the topics of major concern in the bilateral dialogue are papal primacy and infallibility and so my questions are right on the mark.

Dear Father Ambrose,

These topics are of major concern. Thankfully you and Isa will not be there to demand that you be allowed to define what those two topics mean or entail.

I will not answer your questions because I do not give you the right to define what my Church means by primacy and infallibility...apparently Orthodoxy has not relegated that privilege to you either or your name would be on the lists of bi-lateral participants.

Oh my! This kind of disdain for the Orthodox is hardly ever met with among Roman Catholics. It seems that you refuse to answer the questions and feel you must attack the one who asks them .

You are not asking a question in fact. You are trying to control both sides of the discussion. That is called a monologue. I don't intend to interrupt you. Please do not try to verbally bully me into doing so.

The Orthodox always make an effort to answer your questions. You, almost invariably, ignore ours. Now *who* is trying to control this dialogue !?

So you cannot answer my simple questions? Why? Why are you evading them?

You have said many times that the topics of major concern in the bilateral dialogue are papal primacy and infallibility and so my questions are right on the mark.

Dear Father Ambrose,

These topics are of major concern. Thankfully you and Isa will not be there to demand that you be allowed to define what those two topics mean or entail.

I will not answer your questions because I do not give you the right to define what my Church means by primacy and infallibility...apparently Orthodoxy has not relegated that privilege to you either or your name would be on the lists of bi-lateral participants.

Oh my! This kind of disdain for the Orthodox is hardly ever met with among Roman Catholics. It seems that you refuse to answer the questions and feel you must attack the one who asks them .

You are not asking a question in fact. You are trying to control both sides of the discussion. That is called a monologue. I don't intend to interrupt you. Please do not try to verbally bully me into doing so.

The Orthodox always make an effort to answer your questions. You, almost invariably, ignore ours. Now *who* is trying to control this dialogue !?

The reality is in ANY debate, if one side insists upon control of the terms of the debate, then they control the debate. It becomes one sided. So...you may have what you demand...

I guess where I erred was in the way my post was worded. I did not mean "just like in the modern Episcopate." I should have said like or similar to. Obviously Pope is an office, but the one holding the office possesses Petrine authority. This, I suppose, is where we differ since to the Eastern Orthodox charisms are only received via Sacraments and not in any other way.

For the Eastern Churches the petrine ministry is found in each and every bishop, because all the bishops are the successors of all the Apostles, including St. Peter; so there is no sense in which the bishop of Rome, or the bishops of Alexandria and Antioch for that matter, ontologically continue the petrine ministry in a unique way.

How do you explain the delegates at the Council of Ephesus proclaiming "St. Peter speaks through Leo"?

This statement - made by the Fathers of the Council of Chalcedon - is not understood in the Eastern Churches in an ontological sense, but was meant to convey the idea that Leo's Tome, i.e., after it had been diligently examined in committee in order to determine its agreement with the teaching of St. Cyril, was an Orthodox expression of the Church's Christological faith.

ULtramontanists take NOTE: the ex cathedra Tome of a pontiff of Rome was examined by an Ecumenical Council to see if it agree with the Faith of the Pope of Alexandria.

Oh good, since I am not an ultramontanist

Oh, good, then you"teach and declare that, according to the gospel evidence" that "the eternal shepherd and guardian of our souls, in order to render permanent the saving work of redemption, determined to build a Church in which, as in the house of the living God, all the faithful should be linked by the bond of one faith and charity. Therefore, before He was glorified, He besought His Father, not for the Apostles only, but also for those who were to believe in Him through their word, that they all might be one as the Son Himself and the Father are one. So then, just as he sent apostles, whom he chose out of the world, even as he had been sent by the Father, in like manner it was his will that in his Church there should be shepherds and teachers until the end of time" so "that the episcopal office should be one and undivided and that, by the union of the clergy, the whole multitude of believers should be held together in the unity of faith and communion...this doctrine is to be believed and held by all the faithful in accordance with the ancient and unchanging faith of the whole Church...Upon the strength of this foundation was to be built the eternal temple, and the Church whose topmost part reaches heaven was to rise upon the firmness of this foundation...that which our lord Jesus Christ, the Prince of shepherds and great Shepherd of the sheep....for the continual salvation and permanent benefit of the Church, must of necessity remain for ever, by Christ's authority, in the Church which, founded as it is upon a rock, will stand firm until the end of time...For no one can be in doubt, indeed it was known in every age...[the Apostles,] the pillar[s ] of faith and the foundation of the Catholic Church, received the keys of the kingdom from our lord Jesus Christ, the savior and redeemer of the human race...Indeed, their apostolic teaching was embraced by all the venerable fathers and reverenced and followed by all the holy orthodox doctors...to satisfy this pastoral office, [their] predecessors strove unwearyingly that the saving teaching of Christ should be spread among all the peoples of the world; and with equal care they made sure that it should be kept pure and uncontaminated wherever it was received....It was for this reason that the bishops of the whole world, sometimes individually, sometimes gathered in synods, according to the long established custom of the Churches and the pattern of ancient usage...so that they might discharge their exalted office for the salvation of all...established in the blessed apostle Peter....too, as the circumstances of the time or the state of affairs suggested, sometimes by summoning ecumenical councils or consulting the opinion of the Churches scattered throughout the world, sometimes by special synods, sometimes by taking advantage of other useful means afforded by divine providence, defined as doctrines to be held those things which, by God's help, they knew to be in keeping with Sacred Scripture and the apostolic traditions...following the footsteps of their predecessors,[they] published this solemn profession of faith: The first condition of salvation is to maintain the rule of the true faith....For the Holy Spirit was promised to the successors of [the Apostles]...that, by His assistance, they might religiously guard and faithfully expound the revelation or deposit of faith transmitted by the apostles...., in accordance with the divine promise of our Lord and Savior to...His disciples...so that the whole flock of Christ might be kept away by them from the poisonous food of error and be nourished with the sustenance of heavenly doctrine. Thus the tendency to schism is removed and the whole Church is preserved in unity, and, resting on its foundation, can stand firm against the gates of hell...All this is to be found in the acts of the ecumenical councils and the sacred canons"concerning"those dangers especially which arose in matters concerning the faith. This was to ensure that any damage suffered by the faith should be repaired in that place above all where the faith can know no failing...So what the truth has ordained stands firm, and blessed Peter perseveres in the rock-like strength he was granted, and does not abandon that guidance of the Church which he once received....therefore, faithfully adhering to the tradition received from the beginning of the Christian faith, to the glory of God our savior, for the exaltation of the Catholic religion and for the salvation of the Christian people, with the approval of the Sacred Council" the Fathes asserted and you assent "that this primacy was not conferred immediately and directly on blessed Peter himself, but rather on the Church, and that it was through the Church that it was transmitted to him in his capacity as her minister," and "that blessed Peter the apostle was not appointed by Christ the lord as prince of all the apostles and visible head of the whole Church militant"and"that it was a primacy of honor only and not one of true and proper jurisdiction that he directly and immediately received from"the Apostolate of"our lord Jesus Christ Himself" and you hold "This is the teaching of the Catholic truth, and no one can depart from it without endangering his faith and salvation"And so you,"supported by the clear witness of Holy Scripture, and adhering to the manifest and explicit decrees both of [the] predecessors [of] the Roman Pontiffs and of [the Ecumenical] Councils...which must be believed by all faithful Christians...maintain that it is lawful to appeal from the judgments of the Roman pontiffs to an ecumenical council as....an authority superior to the Roman Pontiff"and "that the Roman Pontiff has merely an office of supervision and guidance, and not the full and supreme power of jurisdiction over the whole Church, and this not only in matters of faith and morals, but also in those which concern the discipline and government of the Church dispersed throughout the whole world; and that he has only the principal part, but not the absolute fullness, of this supreme power; [and] that this power of his is not ordinary and immediate both over all and each of the Churches and over all and each of the pastors and faithful...And so" you agree with us that "they stray from the genuine path of truth who who maintain that....the Roman Pontiff, by the divine right of the apostolic primacy, governs the whole Church, [and] likewise teach and declare that he is the supreme judge of the faithful, and that in all cases which fall under ecclesiastical jurisdiction recourse may be had to his judgment [and that] the sentence of the Apostolic See (than which there is no higher authority) is not subject to revision by anyone, nor may anyone lawfully pass judgment thereupon,"they who"promulgate anew..."That apostolic primacy....the Roman Pontiff possesses as successor of Peter, the prince of the apostles, includes also the supreme power of teaching...a primacy of jurisdiction over the whole Church of God [which] was immediately and directly promised to the blessed apostle Peter and conferred on him by Christ the Lord...And it was to Peter alone that Jesus, after his resurrection, confided the jurisdiction of Supreme Pastor and ruler of his whole fold...In order, then,....He set blessed Peter over the rest of the apostles and instituted in him the permanent principle of both unities and their visible foundation"so you say"Therefore, if anyone says"these things, you say"let him be anathema."

"To this absolutely manifest teaching of the Sacred Scriptures, as it has always been understood by the Catholic Church,...the constant custom of the Church demonstrates it, and the ecumenical councils, particularly those in which East and West met in the union of faith and charity, have declared it...So then, should anyone, which God forbid, have the temerity to reject this definition of ours:" you say "let him be anathema" including "the definition of the Council of Florence: "The Roman Pontiff is the true vicar of Christ, the head of the whole Church and the father and teacher of all Christians; and to him was committed in blessed Peter, by our lord Jesus Christ, the full power of tending, ruling and governing the whole Church." and"what is more, with the approval of the second Council of Lyons, the [Apostates] ma[kng] the following profession:"The Holy Roman Church possesses the supreme and full primacy and principality over the whole Catholic Church. She truly and humbly acknowledges that she received this from the Lord himself in blessed Peter, the prince and chief of the apostles, whose successor the Roman Pontiff is, together with the fullness of power. And since before all others she has the duty of defending the truth of the faith, so if any questions arise concerning the faith, it is by her judgment that they must be settled."and"So...the [annulled] fourth Council of Constantinople, And since that saying of our lord Jesus Christ, You are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church, cannot fail of its effect, the words spoken are confirmed by their consequences. For in the Apostolic See the Catholic religion has always been preserved unblemished, and sacred doctrine been held in honor. Since it is our earnest desire to be in no way separated from this faith and doctrine, we hope that we may deserve to remain in that one communion which the Apostolic See preaches, for in it is the whole and true strength of the Christian religion"with"the definition of the ecumenical Council of Florence, , namely that the Apostolic See and the Roman Pontiff hold a world-wide primacy, and that the Roman Pontiff is the successor of blessed Peter, the prince of the apostles, true vicar of Christ, head of the whole Church and father and teacher of all Christian people. To him, in blessed Peter, full power has been given by our lord Jesus Christ to tend, rule and govern the universal Church....So, then, if anyone says"these things you say"let him be anathema....and condemn the contrary errors which are so harmful to the Lord's flock...the distorted opinions of those who misrepresent the form of government which Christ the lord established in his Church[:]On the institution of the apostolic primacy in blessed Peter....On the permanence of the primacy of blessed Peter in the Roman pontiffs....On the power and character of the primacy of the Roman Pontiff....[and] On the infallible teaching authority of the Roman Pontiff," twisting that out of "It was to Simon alone, to whom he had already said You shall be called Cephas, that the Lord, after his confession, You are the Christ, the son of the living God, spoke these words:Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jona. For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father who is in heaven. And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of the underworld shall not prevail against it. I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven...saying:Feed my lambs, feed my sheep...I have prayed for you that your faith may not fail; and when you have turned again, strengthen your brethren" and so you "are clearly opposed...and deny that Peter, in preference to the rest of the apostles, taken singly or collectively, was endowed by Christ with a true and proper primacy of jurisdiction...That apostolic primacy which the Roman Pontiff possesses as successor of Peter, the prince of the apostles, includes also the supreme power of teaching...The same may be said of those who assert...furthermore, [that] it follows from that supreme power which the Roman Pontiff has in governing the whole Church, that he has the right, in the performance of this office of his, to communicate freely with the pastors and flocks of the entire Church, so that they may be taught and guided by him in the way of salvation....And therefore [you] condemn and reject the opinions of those who hold that this communication of the Supreme Head..in this way, by unity with the Roman Pontiff in communion and in profession of the same faith, the Church of Christ becomes one flock under one Supreme Shepherd"and you say "that it is not by the institution of Christ the lord himself (that is to say, by divine law) that blessed Peter should have perpetual successors in the primacy over the whole Church" and "that the Roman Pontiff is not the successor of blessed Peter in this primacy" as "This power of the Supreme Pontiff by [all] means detracts from that ordinary and immediate power of episcopal jurisdiction, by which bishops, who have succeeded to the place of the apostles by appointment of the Holy Spirit, tend and govern individually the particular flocks which have been assigned to them"while"On the contrary, this power of theirs is asserted, supported and defended...for St. Gregory the Great says: "My honor is the honor of the whole Church. My honor is the steadfast strength of my brethren. Then do I receive true honor, when it is denied to none of those to whom honor is due."...Therefore, if anyone says" that "Therefore whoever succeeds to the chair of Peter obtains by the institution of Christ himself, the primacy of Peter over the whole Church...For this reason it has always been necessary for every Church--that is to say the faithful throughout the world--to be in agreement with the Roman Church because of its more effective leadership. In consequence of being joined, as members to head, with that see, from which the rights of sacred communion flow to all, they will grow together into the structure of a single body...that the holy and most blessed Peter, prince and head of the apostles,...to this day and for ever he lives and presides and exercises judgment in his successors the bishops of the Holy Roman See, which he founded and consecrated with his blood"you say"let him be anathema"and anthematize those who "[the] Holy See has always maintained this...as a divinely revealed dogma that when the Roman Pontiff speaks ex cathedra, that is, when, in the exercise of his office as shepherd and teacher of all Christians, in virtue of his supreme apostolic authority, he defines a doctrine concerning faith or morals to be held by the whole Church, he possesses, by the divine assistance promised to him in blessed Peter, that infallibility which the divine Redeemer willed his Church to enjoy in defining doctrine concerning faith or morals...that, by divine ordinance, the Roman Church possesses a pre-eminence of ordinary power over every other Church, and that this jurisdictional power of the Roman Pontiff is both episcopal and immediate. Both clergy and faithful, of whatever rite and dignity, both singly and collectively, are bound to submit to this power by the duty of hierarchical subordination and true obedience, and this not only in matters concerning faith and morals, but also in those which regard the discipline and government of the Church throughout the world....[who] teach and define...therefore, such definitions of the Roman Pontiff are of themselves, and not by the consent of the Church, irreformable...so that they might, by his revelation, make known some new doctrine...since the gates of hell trying, if they can, to overthrow the Church, make their assault with a hatred that increases day by day against its divinely laid foundation....Wherefore"those who"teach and declare...[that a] gift of truth and never-failing faith was therefore divinely conferred on Peter and his successors in this See...referred to this Apostolic See...The Roman pontiffs"as the"First dogmatic constitution on the Church of Christ...that this See of St. Peter always remains unblemished by any error...judge it absolutely necessary to affirm solemnly [as a] prerogative which the only-begotten Son of God was pleased to attach to supreme pastoral office" you anathematize, includingthe nonsene spewed "at Rome in public session, solemnly [ex cathedra] in the Vatican Basilica in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and seventy, on the eighteenth day of July, in the twenty-fifth year of [the] pontificate"by"Pius, bishop...with the approval of the Sacred Council, for an everlasting record" of Ultramontanism.

You are free to do as you like. To those who have ears, let them hear.

« Last Edit: January 20, 2011, 03:43:33 AM by ialmisry »

Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.A hasty quarrel kindles fire,and urgent strife sheds blood.If you blow on a spark, it will glow;if you spit on it, it will be put out; and both come out of your mouth

I know that as a Roman Catholic you have a vested interest in reading history through the lense of the First Vatican Council, but as a Melkite Catholic I do not share that same interest.

Great, another Eastern riter who doesn't really believe in Vatican I.

The claim of the Roman communion truly being a dogmatic union is getting more pathetic by the hour.

« Last Edit: January 20, 2011, 04:45:26 AM by deusveritasest »

Logged

I stopped posting here in August 2011 because of stark disagreement with the policies of the administration and moderating team of the forums. If you desire, feel free to PM me, message me on Facebook (link in profile), or email me: cddombrowski@gmail.com

Oh come now, don't expect any intellectually serious person to believe that you chose your view based on an honest assessment and not because it fit your preconceived conclusion. I am a Catholic apologist, but unlike you I am honest with myself and others.

I have not questioned your sincerity and I would ask you to show the same respect.

As I said, I was a Roman Catholic for eighteen years before becoming Melkite Catholic in 2005, so I know the positions commonly taken by apologists for papal supremacy. I know the Western take on the papacy, and used to believe it myself, but I gave it up after becoming Melkite Catholic and substituted in its place the views of my Melkite Catholic co-religionists, all of whom believe in papal primacy, while simultaneously rejecting the theories of papal absolutism promoted by Vatican I.

So why do you remain "in communion" with Rome when you disagree with Rome and agree with the EO Church?

Because his church teaches that complete unity of doctrine in these matters is not necessary and that visible union is desirable even amongst the disagreement, a view which your own church tolerates. It's all very pluralistic.

Logged

I stopped posting here in August 2011 because of stark disagreement with the policies of the administration and moderating team of the forums. If you desire, feel free to PM me, message me on Facebook (link in profile), or email me: cddombrowski@gmail.com

Oh come now, don't expect any intellectually serious person to believe that you chose your view based on an honest assessment and not because it fit your preconceived conclusion. I am a Catholic apologist, but unlike you I am honest with myself and others.

I have not questioned your sincerity and I would ask you to show the same respect.

As I said, I was a Roman Catholic for eighteen years before becoming Melkite Catholic in 2005, so I know the positions commonly taken by apologists for papal supremacy. I know the Western take on the papacy, and used to believe it myself, but I gave it up after becoming Melkite Catholic and substituted in its place the views of my Melkite Catholic co-religionists, all of whom believe in papal primacy, while simultaneously rejecting the theories of papal absolutism promoted by Vatican I.

So why do you remain "in communion" with Rome when you disagree with Rome and agree with the EO Church?

Why will the Vatican give me communion when I disagree with it and agree with the EO Church, i.e. the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church?

Because they hold to an Augustinian ecclesiology, which is the foundation of the Anglican Branch Theory.

Logged

I stopped posting here in August 2011 because of stark disagreement with the policies of the administration and moderating team of the forums. If you desire, feel free to PM me, message me on Facebook (link in profile), or email me: cddombrowski@gmail.com

As if heresy cannot exist within the Church for a time before being officially condemned and expelled. Well, it most certainly can and has numerous times.

Besides, last time I checked the first date that the filioque was actually used/approved by Rome was in 1014. So your whole 867-1054 designation is a little silly.

Logged

I stopped posting here in August 2011 because of stark disagreement with the policies of the administration and moderating team of the forums. If you desire, feel free to PM me, message me on Facebook (link in profile), or email me: cddombrowski@gmail.com

At this rate, I'd say the "Catholic Church" in union with Rome is just a more conservative version of the Anglican communion.

Bingo!

Logged

I stopped posting here in August 2011 because of stark disagreement with the policies of the administration and moderating team of the forums. If you desire, feel free to PM me, message me on Facebook (link in profile), or email me: cddombrowski@gmail.com

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.A hasty quarrel kindles fire,and urgent strife sheds blood.If you blow on a spark, it will glow;if you spit on it, it will be put out; and both come out of your mouth

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.A hasty quarrel kindles fire,and urgent strife sheds blood.If you blow on a spark, it will glow;if you spit on it, it will be put out; and both come out of your mouth

Honorius didn't issue any dogmatic definitions or ex cathedra teachings that were heretical, so for all the overwrought information flood here, nothing about the life or anathematization of Honorius is relevant to the question of Papal Infallibility.

However, it should also be noted that in receiving the council in the west, Pope Saint Leo II utilized his unique papal prerogatives to amend and further define the rulings of the council after it had closed, making it clear that Honorius' condemnation extended only as far as Honorius had failed to teach against the monothelites as forcefully as he should have. The Sixth Ecumenical Council was much more forceful, saying "To the heretic Honorius, anathema!". However, Leo overrode the council:

Quote

The most important act accomplished by Leo in his short pontificate was his confirmation of the acts of the Sixth Oecumenical Council (680-1). This council had been held in Constantinople against the Monothelites, and had been presided over by the legates of Pope Agatho. After Leo had notified the emperor that the decrees of the council had been confirmed by him, he proceeded to make them known to the nations of the West. The letters which he sent for this end to the king and to the bishops and nobles of Spain have come down to us. In them he explained what the council had effected, and he called upon the bishops to subscribe to its decrees. At the same time he was at pains to make it clear that in condemning his predecessor Honorius I, he did so, not because he taught heresy, but because he was not active enough in opposing it. In accordance with the papal mandate, a synod was held at Toledo (684) in which the Council of Constantinople was accepted.

« [...] Further, we accept the sixth, holy and universal synod, which shares the same beliefs and is in harmony with the previously mentioned synods in that it wisely laid down that in the two natures of the one Christ there are, as a consequence, two principles of action and the same number of wills. So, we anathematize Theodore who was bishop of Pharan, Sergius, Pyrrhus, Paul and Peter, the unholy prelates of the church of Constantinople, and with these, Honorius of Rome, Cyrus of Alexandria as well as Macarius of Antioch and his disciple Stephen, who followed the false teachings of the unholy heresiarchs Apollinarius, Eutyches and Severus and proclaimed that the flesh of God, while being animated by a rational and intellectual soul, was without a principle of action and without a will, they themselves being impaired in their senses and truly without reason. [...] »

Honorius is said to have followed false teachings, that is to have endorsed heresy. He was not guilty of negligence. Is this clear that the successors of Leo II did not consider that he rewrote the condemnation of Honorius?

Logged

«One cannot understand the least thing about modern civilization if one does not first realize that it is a universal conspiracy to destroy the inner life.» (George Bernanos)

"Christ never promised that the Pope, as a person, would not fall into error, just that he would not impose heresy on the Church. There are many things erroneous in theology, philosophy and in other sciences which if held would not destroy the habit of supernatural faith in the soul of the person who held them. Error by definition is a theological category that comprises statements which are counter to truths of theology, philosophy, etc., which themselves not directly deal with matters which have been revealed by God and defined as being so revealed by the Church. In short, holding error does not make one a heretic. And as such, one would still be Pope even if in error. Even St. Alphonsus dei Liguori admits this: "For who will not deny that the Pope can be obnoxious because of his errors?" [Theologia Moralis, vol. 2, n. 135, critical edition]. Needless to say that any other sin, such as sacrilege, blasphemy, fornication, etc., does not make the Pope a heretic."

Does this mean that a Catholic who -- after much study, prayer, and discussion -- rejects, say, the filioque, but does not seek to impose it on the Church, is simply in "error" and not a heretic?

« Last Edit: January 23, 2013, 01:27:52 PM by Jetavan »

Logged

If you will, you can become all flame.Extra caritatem nulla salus.In order to become whole, take the "I" out of "holiness". सर्वभूतहितἌνω σχῶμεν τὰς καρδίας"Those who say religion has nothing to do with politics do not know what religion is." -- Mohandas GandhiY dduw bo'r diolch.

I wouldn't allow you to do my homework...I need to pass external exams based in reality to have any credibility, and the only way you could do my homework is if you controlled both ends of things, as you try to do here, and my degree would be in the art of loosely crafted fantasy and not real life!!!!

Seriously though there are photos in existence with Russian nationalist neo-Nazis and among them are men who are obviously Orthodox monks and priests. Someone did send a link to those photos to my list and back then, I looked and moved on because I am aware that many nations have their neo-nazi nationalists...which should never be confused with its patriots, by the way.

The point is that you and Father Ambrose always leave out inconvenient realities in your lurid, florid and disconnected power-point presentations of what you'd like reality to look like...so that you can continue to maintain your disdain and rejection of the Catholic Church.

And yet we are able to cut and paste, link and post so that readers can discover for themselves. They do not have to take our word on it.

Quote

So I don't intend to go hunting for old photos of Russian nationalist neo-nazi priests. I don't really care about it enough to spend the time. If I run into them again...I'll send them to you and Father Ambrose.

I'll make a mental note.

Btw, did Elijahmaria ever find her Nazi Orthodox priests? I'm beginning to think they are the same Orthodox priests who have been telling her we believe in the IC, the filioque, etc...

Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.A hasty quarrel kindles fire,and urgent strife sheds blood.If you blow on a spark, it will glow;if you spit on it, it will be put out; and both come out of your mouth